AOf '°N ITUuad Id 'aassmjqp?! aiva a§^soj STL a^d ding Seapro 4/c Control and Release P/U FLORIDA EXOTIC PEST PLANT COUNCIL Officers Ken Langeland -Chair Center for Aquatic & Invasive Plants 7922 NW 71st Street Gainesville, PL 32653 352/392-9614 kal@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Tony Pernas -Immediate Past Chair Everglades National Park 40001 SR 9336 Homestead, FL 33034 305/242-7846 tony_pemas@nps.gov Dan Thayer -Treasurer SFWMD Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 561/682-6129 dthayer@sfwmd.gov Amy Ferriter -Editor SFWMD Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 561/682-6097 aferrite@sfwmd.gov Jackie Smith -Secretary DEP -Invasive Plant Management 3111-B13 Fortune Way Wellington, FL 33414 561/791-4720 smithjl@mail.state.fl.us Directors Mike Bodle SFWMD Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 561/682-6132 mbodle@sfwmd.gov Hillary Cherry Botany Dept. University of Florida 220 Bartram Hall P.O. Box 118526 Gainesville, FL 32611 352/336-2623 hcherry@ufl . edu Francois Laroche SFWMD Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 561/682-6193 flaroche@sfwmd.gov Brian Nelson SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899 352/796.7211 brian.nelson@swfwmd.state.fl.us Alison Fox UF -Agronomy Department Post Office Box 110500 Gainesville, FL 32611-0500 352/392-1811 ext.207 amfox@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Dennis Giardina USFWS 3770 19th Avenue SW Naples, FL 34117 941/657-7637 dennis_giardina@fws.gov Christine Sutter SRWMD 9225 CR 49 Live Oak, FL 32060 904/362-1001 sutter_c@srwmd.state.fl.us Phil Waller BASF Corporation 6651 Englelake Drive Lakeland, FL 33813 863/619-6255 phil_waller@py.cyanamid.com Committee Chairs By-Laws Dennis Giardina CAST Representative Ken Langeland Editorial Amy Ferriter Education Hillary Cherry FNGA/FLEPPC Liaison Doria Gordon P.O. Box 118526 Department of Botany University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 352/392-5949 dgordon@botany.ufl.edu Legislative Phil Waller Membership Andrea Van Loan Division of Forestry 1911 SW 34 Street Gainesville, FL 32608 352/372-3505 x 429 vanloaa@doacs.state.fl.us Merchendise vacant Nominations Tony Pernas Program Kathy Burks FDEP 3915 Commonwealth Blvd ms710 Tallahassee, FL 32399 850/487-2600 kathy.burks@dep.state.fl.us Plant List Dan Austin/Kathy Burks Florida Atlantic University Dept of Biological Sciences Boca Raton, FL 33431 561/297-3327 daustin@fau.edu Publications Dan Clark 7922 NW 71st Street Gainesville, FL 32653 352/392-6894 danclark@ufl.edu Research John Volin Florida Atlantic University 2912 College Ave. Davie, FL 33314 954/236-1115 jvolin@fau.edu Ad Hoc Standard Operating Procedures Bob Doren National Park Service Florida International University SERC-OE148 University Park Miami, FL33199 305/348-6721 dorenr@fiu.edu Local Arrangements JB Miller Florida Park Service 1000 Paver Dykes Rd. St. Augustine, FL 32086 904/794-5959 millerjb@aug.com Training Jim Duquesnel P.O. Box 487 Key Largo, FL 33037 305/451-1226 jpcrsp@reefnet.com Vendors Phil Waller Task Forces Australian Pines Robert Egan Habitat Restoration Resources 224 NE 47 Street Pompano Beach, FL 33064 954/788-8018 gardengate way@y ahoo . com Brazilian Pepper Dean Barber 5882 South Semeron Blvd. Orlando, FL 32822 407/275-4004 barberl@mail.state.fl.us Carrotwood Chris Lockhart Habitat Specialists, Inc. P.O. Box 3116 Boynton Beach, FL 33424-3116 561/738-1179 chris.lockhart@habitatspecialists.com Dioscorea Mike Bodle Grasses Gerald "Stinger" Guala, Fairchild Tropical Garden 11935 Old Cutler Rd. Miami, FL 33156 stinger@fiu.edu Lygodium Amy Ferriter/Tom Fucigna Skunkvine Brian Nelson Chinese Tallow Greg Jubinsky/Cheryl McCormick 3915 Commonwealth Blvd. MS710 Tallahassee, FL 32399 850/487-2600 greg_jubinsky@dep.state.fl.us Melaleuca Francois Laroche The Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council has not tested any of the products advertised or re- ferred to in this publication, nor has it verified any of the statements made in any of the advertisements or articles. The Council does not warrant, expressly or implied, the fitness of any product, advertised or the suitability of any advice or statements contained herein. Wildland Weeds WINTER 2000, Volume 4, Number 1 Table of Contents 4 Letter to the Editor 4 Non-native Species at Medieval Castles as Cultural Heritage by Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz 8 New Zealand — a Weedy Paradise by Susan M. Timmins , Susan-Jane Owen and Chris Buddenhagen 1 3 The Genus Jasminum in Florida by Roger L. Hammer 1 8 Mark Your Calendar Visit these websites: Florida EPPC's: www.fleppc.org Tennessee EPPC's: www.webriver.com/tn-eppc California EPPC's : www.caleppc.org Wildland Weeds (ISSN 1524-9786) is a quarterly publication of the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (EPPC) Wildland Weeds is published to provide a focus for the issues and con- cerns regarding exotic pest plant biology, distribution and control. To be- come a member of the Florida EPPC and receive the Council newsletter and Wildland Weeds Magazine, contact the Treasurer. Cover: Brazilian jasmine ( Jasminum fluminensis, J. azoricum misap- plied), is the most frequently encountered and most trouble- some jasmine in Florida Direct editorial inquiries to Amy Ferriter, Editor Wildland Weeds Magazine: 3301 Gun Club Rd. West Palm Beach, FL 33406 aferrite@sfwmd.gov Editorial Board Mike Bodle Jim Cuda Roger Hammer Ken Langeland Steve Manning Dan Thayer For advertising information contact: Outdoor Tech, Inc. 6791 Proctor Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32308 Phone 850 668-2353 Fax 850 668-2664 Debra Tarver WILDLAND WEEDS 3 Letter to the Editor: FLEPPC was recently contacted by the Central Florida Palm & Cycad Society (CFPACS) concerning our listing of three palm spe- cies, Livistonia chinensis, Chinese fan palm, Phoenix reclinata, Senegal date palm, and Ptychosperma elegans , solitary palm as Cat- egory II on the FLEPPC 1999 List of Invasive Species. CFPACS was "surprised, amazed is more like it," that these species, (espe- cially Livistona chinensis, which are "SO slow-growing " and in the case of Phoenix reclinata, dioecious) are listed along with invasive species such as Wedelia trilobata. Part of the concerns of CFPACS, as has been the concern of others, is the implication that plants listed on the FLEPPC List of Invasive Species will be pro- hibited or regulated in some way. The purpose of the FLEPPC List of Invasive Species is to in- form others of those species that we consider to be invasive. Our definition of Category II is clear, "Invasive exotics that have in- creased in abundance or frequency but have not yet altered Florida plant communities to the extent shown by Category I species." Just as species in Category I are not equally invasive, so it is with those listed as Category II. While the palms and cycads as a group are slow growing and slow to reach sexual maturity and therefore not as invasive as some other species, all three palm species listed as Category II meet the criteria: Phoenix reclinata (plants are not always fertile when observed so at least Phoenix- type plants) has been observed in natural areas since the 70's from at least Palm Beach County south and recently in Hernando County. Ptychosperma elegans naturalizes regularly and has been observed for over a decade in Gumbo Limbo Nature Center (Palm Beach County) and in natural areas of Dade and Monroe Counties. Livistona chinensis is naturalized and found frequently in ham- mocks of south Florida and has escaped in Manatee and Putnam Counties. While certain species listed as Category I or II are regu- lated at federal, state, county, or city levels, and perhaps others should be, listing does not itself imply that a species should or will be regulated. CFPACS asks that we consult with "academic botanists spe- cializing in these plants" before listing palms and cycads as inva- sive. We appreciate the interest of CFPACS in our efforts to iden- tify invasive plant species and will, as in the past, seek the con- sensus of experts within FLEPPC and outside our own organiza- tion on the listing of species as invasive. We as members of FLEPPC must continue dialogue with horticultural interests con- cerning the intent of our List of Invasive Species and the reasons for listing species. -Ken Langland Non-native Species dieval Castles as Cultural Heritage Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz, TU Berlin, Rothenburgstr. 12, D - 12165 Berlin, Germany Dehnen-Schmutz@tu-berlin.de Introduction present study focused on non-native plant species \ occurring at medieval castles. In Central Europe '^^'castles are among the oldest buildings. On top of hills and rocks they were built during the 11th - 13th century in the Middle Ages. Since that time they are centers of spread of non-native plants. Waste, transportation of goods, visitors and castle gardens were the first sources of diaspores of non- native plants which colonized the surroundings of the castles assisted by the accumulation of nutrients from mortar, waste and livestock. With the end of the Middle Ages, the castles lost their function, most of them were destroyed or became dilapidated, only some were used as residential buildings. In the 19th century a new interest in the castles began and some of them were reconstructed. Today they are ruins or used as museum, restaurant, hotel or residential building. But in general castles were much less changed during the centuries than towns or settlements. Castles were intensively used over a period of up to 400 years and than often un- used over a period of the same extension. Therefore they 4 WINTER 2000 are suitable objects to study the ques- tion, if it is possible to explain the oc- currence of non-native species at castles today with their use in the Middle Ages or later historic periods. Study areas and methods Five areas in Southern and south- eastern Germany were investigated: Fig. 1: The five investigation areas in Germany and the number of investigated castles. parts of the river valleys of the Saale, Altmiihl and Neckar, and parts of the regions Frankische Schweiz and Schwabische Alb (Figure 1). These landscapes have a high density of medieval castles all built on limestone rocks. Plant species of walls and rocks of 56 castles were recorded from 1994 - 1997. The investigation was limited to the plants of rocks and walls because especially non-native species occurring in natural or semi-natural vegetation should be recorded. Cultivated plants were consequently excluded. Non-native species are defined as species that have not evolved in the investigation area since the last Ice Age and whose introduction or immigra- tion was supported deliberately or in- voluntarily by human activities (Kowarik 1995). They are divided by time of introduction in archaeophytes (invading before 1500 AD) and neo- phytes (invading after 1500 AD). Information about time of introduc- tion, area of origin and use of the plants were taken from literature (Dull & Kutzelnigg (1992), Fischer-Benzon (1894), Fischer (1929), Hegi (1906-1998), Schlosser et al. (1991), Willerding (1992)). Results A total of 371 plant species occurred on the rocks and the walls of the castles, 97 of them non-native. According to their time of introduction they could be seperated into 66 archaeophytes and 31 neophytes. Neophytes occurred with a higher frequency (4.2 localities per species) than archaeophytes (3.1) The origin of 75 non-native species is Europe or Europe and Asia and most species in these two groups are of Mediterranean origin. These species occurred with the highest frequency (3.6 / 3.5 localities per species), whereas species of Asian or American origin had lower numbers of localities per species (3.3 and 2.8 respectively). The most frequent non-native spe- PRODUCT PORTFOLIO Arsenal Stalker Plateau Oasis Sahara Pendulum BASF Corporation PRODUCT USES • Invasive Plant Control • Brush Control • Bareground • Turf Management • Basal Applications • Pre-emergent Control • Aquatic EUP • For More Information on How to Solve Your Vegetation Problems Call Phil Waller (863) 619-6255 6651 ENGLELAKE DRIVE, LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33813 WILDLAND WEEDS 5 |lg- H, '• ' .^>JA ■Vf*- 5 v.w •• 'is ’ : i0f%‘ •Jr- Fischer 1929) or archaeo- botanical results from exca- vations (WlLLERDING 1992). Altogether 91 species were usable plants during the Middle Ages, 33 species of them are archaeophytes. This means that of 66 archaeophytes occurring at the castles 50% have a possible use in that time. Table 1 shows most plants ten with a widespread area of applica- tions: • Henbane ( Hyoscyamus niger) was used during the Middle Ages as a drug in magic potions, as anaesthetic for dental treatment or as intoxicating herb for beer-brewing • Rue (Ruta graveolens ) for gyneco- logical disorders, eye complaints, abortions, and as magical plant against enemies and devils. Fig. 2.: Neophytic shrub association with Lilac (Syringa vulgaris) and Duke of Argyll's Teaplant (Lycium barbarum) at the castle Neuenburg in the Saale/Unstrut region. cies were Viper's bugloss ( Echium vulgare ) and Lilac ( Syringa vulgaris ) occurring at 40 -60% of the castles. At several castles the Lilac is the dominating plant in neophytic shrub associations (Figure 2) accompanied by Duke of Argyll's Teaplant ( Lycium barbarum ), Robinia ( Robinia pseudoacacia ), Snowberry (Symphori- carpos albus ), Laburnum ( Laburnum anagyroidcs ) and several native shrubs. Also, in the herbaceaus layer under the shrubs non-native plants occur (e.g.: Barren Brome (Bromus sterilis), Pellitory-of-the-wall ( Parictaria officinalis), Bur Chervil ( Anthriscus caucalis )). More conspicuous are the populations of Iris, mostly Iris gcrmanica (Figure 3), covering areas of up to 20 m_ on the rocks of some castles. On the walls. Wallflower (Erysimum cheiri, Figure 4), Snap- dragon (Antirhinum majus ), Yellow Corydalis (Corydalis lutca ) or Ivy- leaved Toadflax (Cymbalaria muralis) are colourful examples of non-native plants established in the seminatural wall-vegetation. Utilisation of the plants during the Middle Ages was analysed for non- native (archaeophytes) and native spe- cies. In the evaluation, uses were taken into consideration which are verified by historical documents from the Middle Ages (Fischer-Benzon 1894, served as medicinal plants of- 1m' Table 1 : Native and non-native (only archaeophytes) species at the castles, which were ■ used during the Middle Ages and their possible use as medicinal , food technical - or m ornamental plant. ■ Use total native non-native (archaeophytes) medicinal 66 49 17 also used: magical 3 1 2 food 9 5 4 spice 5 3 2 ornamental 1 - 1 food 11 6 5 also used: medicinal 4 1 3 technical 5 1 4 also used: medicinal 2 1 1 ornamental 10 3 7 also used: medicinal 2 1 1 Others were spices or food plants 2 shows the comparison between the and others had a technical use - e.g. potential uses of archaeophytes and the Yellow Chamomilla (Anthemis neophytes. tinctoria ) for dyeing or the Pellitory-of- the-wall ( Parietaria officinalis and P. Discussion judaica ) for cleaning. An important tree Rocks around medieval castles and for the inhabitants of the castles in these times might be the Yew (Taxus baccata) from whose wood bows were built. Some of the old food plants are still used today like the Walnut ( Juglans regia ) or the Chives (Allium schoenoprasum) , others are unknown today like the use of the hot leaves of the Pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium ) or eating leaves of Mallows ( Malva neglecta and M. sylvestris) like spinach. In contrast, most of the neophytes introduced later (after the end of the Middle Ages in 1500 AD) were used as ornamentals (24 of 31 species). Table castle walls are places with a high por- tion of non-native plant species. 26% non-native species were found at these sites, while in the total flora of Germany there are only 16% (Jager 1991). The por- tions of archaeophytes and neophytes were also different: 68% of the non-na- tive species at the castles were archaeophytes, while in the total non- native flora they contribute only 40%. With the methods of this investiga- tion it is not possible to explain locali- ties of non-native species at the castles with their use at the same castles in the Middle Ages or later times but there 6 WINTER 2000 Table 2: Comparison of potential uses of archaeophytes and neophytes at the castles, (absolute number and percentage). Multiple uses of some species are not regarded. Information about uses is taken from literature (Doll & Kutzelnigg (1992), Fischer-Benzon (1894), Fischer (1929), Hegi (1906-1998), Schlosser et al. (1991), Willerding (1992)). Use Archaeophytes Neophytes medicinal 24 36% 1 3% food 7 11% 0 - forage 1 2% 0 - technical 4 6% 0 - ornamental 8 12% 24 78% without use 22 33% 6 19% are some reasons which underline this hypothesis. At first this is the occur- rence of vegetatively propagated plants like the iris-species. Their locali- ties are often limited to rocks near the castles and no way of long distance dispersal is known. Second, it is the limitation to castles of species used es- pecially in the Middle Ages e.g. Rue or Iris (Iris sp.). Medieval documents veri- fying concrete localities of non-native species at castles are not known but for some species and localities it is possible to find references in literature more than 100 years old. Species of different times of intro- duction represent different uses of the castles during the centuries. In the Middle Ages the castles were built and used for protection and demonstration of power. In the castle area there were stables, working areas and gardens. People living in the castles had to work in the fields too. Plants which were used in these times were mostly plants useful for daily life at the castles. Con- sequently the non-native species intro- duced in or before the Middle Ages could be used for these purposes. With the end of the Middle Ages the func- tion of castles changed. Some were used as prestigious residential build- ings. Now ornamental plants became more important for the inhabitants of the castles. This could explain why the portion of neophytes (introduced after the Middle Ages) occurring at the castles are used mostly as ornamental plants (24 of 31 species). Also, this might be one reason for the higher number of neophytes at castles used until today than at castles which are ruins (Dehnen-Schmutz 1998). Non-native species have changed the vegetation of rocks around castles. There might be cases of local displacing of native species but in general non-native species do not belong to the reasons endangering rock-vegetation in Germany (Witschel 1998). The results of this study show that these non-native species are a cul- tural heritage documenting medieval culture and the history of use of the castles like the walls and towers of the castles themselves. References: Dehnen-Schmutz, K. (1998): Medieval castles as centers of spread of non-native plant species. - In: Starfinger, U., Edwards, K., Kowarik, I. & Williamson, M. [Ed.]: Plant Invasions: Ecological Mechanisms and Hu- man Responses. - Leiden (Backhuys Publish- ers) p. 307-312. Dull, R. & Kutzelnigg, H. (1992): Botanisch-okologisches Exkursion- staschenbuch. 4. Aufl. - Heidelberg (Quelle & Meyer) 546 S. Fischer, H. (1929): Mittelalterliche Botanik. (Nachdruck 1967) - Hildesheim (Georg Olms) 326 S. Fischer-Benzon, R. von (1894): Altdeutsche Gartenflora - Untersuchungen liber die Nutzpflanzen des deutschen Mittelalters, ihre Wanderung und ihre Vorgeschichte im klassischen Altertum. - Kiel und Leipzig (Verlag von Lipsius & Tischer) 254 S. Hegi, G. [Begr.] (1906-1998): Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa. - Band I - VI, z.T. 3. Auflage. Miinchen (Lehmann), Berlin (Parey). JAger, E.J. (1988): Moglichkeiten der Prognose synanthroper Pflanzenaus- breitungen. - Flora 180: 101-131. Kowarik, I. (1995): On the role of alien spe- cies in urban flora and vegetation. - In: Pysek, P, Prach, K., Rejmanek, M. & Wade, M. [Ed.]: Plant Invasions - General Aspects and Spe- cial Problems. - Amsterdam (SPB Academic Publishing) p. 85-103. Schlosser, S., Reichhoff, L. & Hanelt, P. (1991): Wildpflanzen Mitteleuropas - Nutzung und Schutz. - Berlin (Deutscher Landwirtschaftsverlag) 550 S. Willerding, U. (1992): Garten und Pflanzen des Mittelalters. - In: Carroll- Spillecke, M. [Hrsg.]: Der Garten von der Antike bis zum Mittelalter. - Mainz (von Zabern) S. 249-284. Witschel, M. (1998): Gefahrdung der Felsflora - Ursachen, Handlungsbedarf und Ergebnisse aus der Naturschutzpraxis. - Schr.-R. f. Vegetationskde. 29: 251-260. Fig. 4 & 4b: Wallflower ( Erysimum cheiri) on the wall of the castle Horneck (Neckar). WILDLAND WEEDS 7 New Zealand -a By Susan M. Timmins, Susan-Jane Owen and Chris Buddenhagen Department of Conservation, PO Box 10-420, Wellington, New Zealand sowen@doc.govt.nz; stimmins@doc.govt.nz: cbuddenhagen@doc.govt.nz Susan Timmins and Chris Buddenhagen are weed ecologists (Science & Research Unit) and Susan-Jane Owen is a senior policy analyst; they all work with the New Zealand Department of Conservation. New Zealand the paradise? Tourist brochures talk of New Zealand as a land of captivating scen- ery, snow-capped mountains, beauti- ful lakes and dinosaur rainforests: a mecca for nature-lovers. New Zealand has high endemism, for example 80% of the 2,057 native vascular plants are found nowhere else. Unfortunately, New Zealand is also a country teem- ing with weeds. Over 25,000 plant spe- cies have been introduced in the last 200 years. Of these, 2,100 species have already naturalised and many of the remaining massive pool of cultivated species will naturalise in the future. But oh so weedy About 10%of naturalised plant spe- cies subsequently become invasive weeds of conservation concern. The number of invasive weeds in New Zealand has been steadily growing since the 1860s and this trend shows no sign of slowing down. The New Zealand Department of Conservation (DOC) manages 30% of New Zealand's land area for conservation and lists about 250 invasive weeds on this and other land (Owen 1997). Based on past trends, we expect two new species to be added to this list each year (Buddenhagen et al. 1998). Most of these weeds were deliberately intro- duced to New Zealand - 75% as gar- den plants and 14% for agriculture. / New scarf weed ' statistics 25,000 introduced species 2,100 naturalised species, 2,057 native plant species 250 invasive weed species of conservation concern 75% of the invasive species are garden escapes At 150 sites weeds threaten native communities or species with extinction Weeds are the main risk to sur- vival of a third of the threat- ened plant species horticulture or forestry. This trend also seems set to continue. Similarly, about half of the aquatic species listed by DOC as invasive weeds were intro- duced as ornamental plants (Budden- hagen et al. 1998). These 250 weed species have in- vaded nearly all types of indigenous plant communities in New Zealand and almost the full range of altitude, soil type, rainfall and temperature. An inventory of conservation sites throughout New Zealand showed that weeds would degrade at least 575,000 hectares within 10-15 years and cause the extinction of native communities or species at over 150 sites if no con- trol was done (Buddenhagen et al. 1998). Weeds threaten more than 111 high-priority native forest or shrub- land reserves, large tracts of native tus- sock grassland and more than 30 remnant coastal vegetation communi- ties. Invasive weeds have modified all remaining freshwater wetlands and spread thoughout most of New Zealand's rivers and lakes (Howard- Williams et al. 1987). Another study showed that weeds are the main risk to survival of a third of New Zealand's threatened plant species (Reid 1998). Many of these threatened native plants are small, less than 10 cm tall, and are thus easily smothered or shaded out by competing weeds. They often occur in alpine seepages, wetlands, rivers and lakes, foreshore habitats, dune lakes and sand-dune communities. These same community types are among those most vulnerable to weed invasions - low-stature communities and small, narrow, disturbed remnants with fertile soils that are close to towns (Timmins & Williams 1991). The New Zealand Department of Conservation's Weed Strategy Having painted you a picture of a triffid-like land, it will come as no sur- prise that we have neither the money nor the people-power to do all the weed control that we might want to - so we must prioritise. The Department of Conservation distinguishes between weed control to protect high-value places (site-led control) and weed con- trol to minimise future threats (weed- led control). The two approaches have distinct characteristics (Table 1); full details can be found in Owen (1998) and a summary of the associated prioritising systems in Timmins & Owen (1999). DOC is organised into 13 administrative units called conservan- cies. Weed-led control is a conser- vancy-wide programme on land of any tenure, whereas site-led control fo- cuses on a protected natural area or part thereof (Table 1). 8 WINTER 2000 Monsanto Ad 4/C P/U WILDLAND WEEDS Figure 1: Relationship between population growth and the feasibility of a weed-led programme (Adapted from Williams 1997). Weed-led Control: Nipping it in the Bud Early during an invasion there is a brief window of opportunity to eradi- cate or contain the species; this is the only time for weed-led control (Figure 1). Our aim is to get rid of a nasty weed before it gets away on us. Weed-led programmes are only pursued if we think it is feasible to permanently re- move the target weed species with little likelihood of re-invasion or at the least, contain the spread of the weed within the conservancy. We evaluate the current distribution of the weed and the availability of a suitable con- trol method. In practice, this limits weed-led programmes to species just beginning to invade, or with a very confined distribution, within a conser- vancy. Only for these species is the in- festation likely to be controllable and re-invasion manageable. We also as- sess the likelihood of gaining co-opera- tion from relevant landowners; to be successful, the weed species must be controlled wherever it occurs in a con- servancy, irrespective of the quality of the sites or who owns them. The feasi- bility of a weed-led programme mir- rors the weed population growth (Fig- ure 1). Very few species infestations are feasible for weed-led control. Those that pass the test are prioritised, tak- ing into consideration the potential invasiveness of the species as well as the likely cost, difficulty and speed with which eradication can be achieved. Site-led control: it's the putting right that counts The impetus for site-led control comes from the otherwise high conser- vation values of a site invaded by weeds. The aim is to protect the site values. Site-led programmes are prioritised on the basis of several fac- tors. The higher the site's biodiversity value the higher its priority for weed control. Preventing weeds invading an otherwise pristine place is given a higher priority than controlling well- established infestations. Urgency for control is another factor. Programmes that integrate weed control with other threat management activity, such as species recovery and animal pest con- trol, are also given preference. DOC's site-led programmes vary from places of less than 5 acres to programmes cov- ering 10,000 acres and occur in all com- munity types. Shifting paradigms The weed-led / site-led approach to weed management is a relatively new initiative for DOC. It has meant com- pletely letting go of the paradigm: "It's a noxious weed - kill it" or "It's not on the list - ignore it". Because a new weed must pass the low-incidence test to qualify as a weed-led programme, it is axiomatic that sometimes we don't know much about the invasiveness of a species that is new to a conservancy. Some people don't see the point in con- trolling a weed species that has no de- monstrable ecological impact (yet!). Therefore they are reluctant to conform when, for example, a weed-led programme calls for a ban on growing Table 1: The characteristics which distinguish the weed-led and site-led management approaches. Weed-led Site-led Purpose Prevent new weed species becoming entrenched in the wild in the conservancy. Protect valuable places and threatened species. Scale A whole conservancy. The invaded site. Species focus Newly invading and/or with a very confined distribution in a conservancy. Those necessary to protect the place. Often widespread weeds. Sites All infestations within the conservancy, on sites of any quality and any tenure. Infestations within the place; plus buffers and seed sources outside it. Success when... The species is eradicated or contained within the conservancy. The condition of the native communities and species improves. Note: a conservancy is a Department of Conservation administrative unit; there are 13 in New Zealand. 10 WINTER 2000 a species in gardens. Under the site-led approach, weed control cannot be justified at low- value sites, including those where weeds have been traditionally controlled. Many staff have found it hard to give up on widespread weed species which they had previously attempted, in vain, to eradicate. In addition, each site-led programme control focuses on the species threatening the values of that particular site, whether or not they are commonly thought of as weeds. The weed-led / site-led approach leads us to focus conservancy-wide eradica- tion attempts on weeds of very limited distribution and to confine control of ubiquitous weeds to important sites. Monitoring the outcome, not just the weed The weed-led / site-led approach to weed management, in concert with ro- bust monitoring, should give us bet- ter conservation return for our weed control dollar. By monitoring we regu- larly evaluate the feasibility of weed- led programmes, e.g., control tech- niques may not be as successful as an- ticipated, or new infestations may be discovered that make eradication or containment unlikely. Continuing with such programmes could then waste both resources and community sup- port. Site-led programmes have de- manded more than just a shift in our thinking. We have also changed the way we monitor the effectiveness of weed control. It is not enough to just check whether the infestation has been removed or reduced. Even more im- portant is whether control has achieved the desired conservation out- come. Have the threats posed by the weed to native communities been al- leviated and have native plants colonised the space previously occu- pied by the weed? We have developed monitoring guidelines that outline how the monitoring should be done to produce statistically robust results (Geritzlehner 2000). Our new approach to weed man- agement demands quality informa- tion. To partially address the informa- tion problem, DOC has developed the National Weeds Database. It stores eco- Helena Ad 2 /c P/U logical, distribution and control infor- mation on weed species of concern to DOC. Finding new weeds early enough Too often in the past, by the time a weed was widely recognised as a threat, it was too widespread for eradi- cation to be feasible. Finding new weeds early enough, while they are still in the lag phase, is the aim of DOC's weed surveillance plan (Braithwaite in press). The surveillance plan brings a system to what was a haphazard process and provides for planned, regular and systematic checks for new weeds. Conservancies survey high-value places for weeds new to that place to provide early in- formation for preventative site-led control. They also do species-specific searches, and surveys of vulnerable places looking for any new weed spe- cies. Finds become potential weed-led control programmes. Vulnerable sites may have little or no conservation value but they are where new weed species are likely to first naturalise, for WILDLAND WEEDS 11 example, wastelands and natural areas close to towns. Each conservancy prepares a list of likely species before surveys are con- ducted. The list may include species that are cultivated but not yet naturalised, or those invasive in a nearby conservancy, or those new to New Zealand and causing concern in areas with similar conditions. The list gives the searcher an idea of some of the species to look out for while still being alert for novel species. The Plan also ensures that action is taken on the often-casual sightings made by DOC staff, as well as by weed folk in other land management agen- cies and members of the general pub- lic - such sightings are only valuable if they are heeded (Braithwaite & Timmins 1999). With more systematic searching, and follow-up of new sightings, we expect to be able to find more newly naturalised species, while they can still be eradicated. Conclusion Science provides us with informa- tion essential for managing weeds: their autecology, their impacts, and techniques for controlling them. Translating the science into practical and effective management systems requires us to be very clear about what we are trying to achieve. The Department of Conservation distin- guishes between weed control to eradicate a weed species and minimise future problems (weed-led) and weed control to protect impor- tant places (site-led). This approach, in concert with the other weed ini- tiatives - surveillance system, robust monitoring and a national database - allow us to prioritise our weed work to deliver more conservation return per weed dollar spent. Acknowledgements Thanks to the many people in all levels of the New Zealand Depart- ment of Conservation who helped with the development of the original site-led and weed-led framework. A full list of contributors is given in Owen (1998). References Braithwaite, H. in press. Weed sur- veillance plan for the Department of Conservation. Department of Conser- vation, Wellington, New Zealand. Braithwaite, H.; Timmins, S.M. 1999. Weed surveillance - catching 'em early. In: Proceedings of the twelfth Austra- lian weeds conference, September 1999, Hobart, Australia. Buddenhagen, C., Timmins, S.M., Owen S.J., Champion, R, Nelson, W. and Reid V.A. 1998. An overview of weed impacts and trends. In: Owen, S.J. Department of Conservation stra- tegic plan for managing invasive weeds, chapter 3. Department of Con- servation, Wellington, New Zealand. Geritzlehner, J. 2000. The standard operating procedure for monitoring weed control. Unpublished report. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. Ho ward- Williams, C.; Clayton, J.S; Coffey, B.T. and Johnstone, I.M. 1987. Macrophyte invasions. In: Viner, A.B. (ed). Inland waters of New Zealand, pp 307-331. Bulletin of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Wellington, New Zealand. Owen S.J. 1997. Ecological weeds on conservation land in New Zealand: A database. Department of Conserva- tion, Wellington, New Zealand. Owen, S.J. 1998. Department of Con- servation strategic plan for managing invasive weeds. Department of Con- servation, Wellington. 86p. Reid, V.A. 1998: The impact of weeds on threatened plants. Science & Research internal report 164. Depart- ment of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. 67p. Timmins, S.M. and Owen, S.J. 1999. Scary species, superlative sites: assess- ing weed risk in New Zealand's pro- tected natural areas. Proceedings of First international workshop on weed risk assessment, February 1999, Adelaide, Australia. Timmins, S.M. and Williams, PA. 1991. Weed numbers in New Zealand forest and scrub reserves. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 15(2):53- 162. Williams PA. 1997: Ecology and management of invasive weeds. Con- servation Sciences Publication No. 7. Department of Conservation, Well- ington. Brewer Ad P/U 12 WINTER 2000 Nightshade Family (Solanaceae). Or- ange jasmine (Murraya paniculata ) is in the Citrus Family (Rutaceae). And Madagascar jasmine (Stephanotis flori- bunda ) is in the Milkweed Family (Asclepiadaceae). True jasmines be- long to the genus jasminum, a tropical and subtropical genus comprised of about 300 species of vines and shrubs from Eurasia, Africa, Australia, Oceania, and tropical America. They are members of an economically im- portant group of plants, the Olive Family (Oleaceae) and are related to the olive ( Olea sp.), ash (Fraxinus sp.), and lilac ( Syringa sp.). Many jasmines are of horticultural interest, mainly for their fragrant flowers, and some spe- cies are cultivated commercially for the production of perfume and as a flavor- ing for tea. In many countries the flow- ers are also used in garlands and worn in the hair. Currently there are at least ten spe- cies of Jasminum cultivated in Florida. Of these, seven species have escaped cultivation, which include Gold Coast jasmine (Jasminum dichotomum ) Brazil- ian jasmine (J . fluminense) , Japanese jas- mine (/. mesnyi) star jasmine (/. multiflorum ) angelwing jasmine (/. nitidum ) poet's jasmine (J. officinale), and Arabian jasmine (J. sambac). Following Hurricane Andrew in 1992, Gold Coast jasmine and Brazil- ian jasmine became exceptionally ag- gressive in the storm-damaged forests of Miami-Dade County. Both had been established long before the storm but soil disturbance and abundant light levels created by fallen trees allowed localized populations to explode. Both species were introduced by Dr. David Fairchild, the founder of Fairchild Tropical Garden in Miami. Fairchild even apologized for introducing the Gold Coast jasmine after observing the abundant fruits produced in Florida, fearing that he may have introduced a plant that would become a serious en- vironmental pest. In 1962, Robert Read, a botanist as- sociated with Fairchild Tropical Gar- den authored a paper in the proceed- ings of the Florida State Horticultural Society entitled "Jasmine species in cultivation in Florida and their correct names." In this paper. Read mentions Fairchild's early concerns regarding the weedy potential of Gold Coast jas- mine but concluded that "although the species does produce an abundance of fruit it is not a serious weed. Only a few wild plants may be found in va- cant lots and along the roadside in south Florida." That Was Then, This Is Now As Dr. Fairchild predicted. Gold Coast jasmine has become a trouble- some weed in Florida and can now be found in virtually every hardwood for- est in urbanized Miami-Dade County. Wunderlin (1998) lists it for Highlands County and the southern peninsula, and the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Coun- cil (EPPC) includes it in Category I of Florida's most invasive species. Cat- WILDLAND WEEDS 13 egory I is reserved for those plant spe- cies that are disrupting Florida native habitats and includes such notorious pests as Brazilian pepper ( Schinus terebinthifolius) , cajeput ( Melaleuca quinquenervia) , and Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia). Aside from native habitats. Gold Coast jasmine is also exceptionally weedy in disturbed sites, such as along fencerows as well as in cultivated landscapes. Gold Coast jasmine is a woody climber, which can reach 25 feet or more into the tree canopy. Its simple, ovate, glossy leaves are opposite and the petioles are noticeably angled in a somewhat elbow shape. This is a use- ful characteristic that resource manag- ers can use to identify sterile plants because a native shrub of hardwood forests in southern Florida, snowberry ( Chioccoca alba) somewhat resembles Gold Coast jasmine but lacks the angled petiole. Gold Coast jasmine produces intensely fragrant white flowers that are pink when in bud. The flowers are followed by a great abundance of pea-sized black or dark purple fruits that are eaten by birds and mammals. Fairchild's Folly Another species that Dr. Fairchild introduced into Florida, and again one that he later apologized for, is Brazil- ian jasmine. This plant has an inter- esting history of introductions. In 1916, cuttings labeled Jasminum azoricum were shipped from La Mortola Gardens in Italy to the USDA Plant Introduction Station in Miami. None of these cuttings survived so it is unknown whether or not they were actually J. azoricum, a native of the Ca- nary Islands. Seeds that Dr. Fairchild introduced in 1931 came from Oranjestad, St. Eustatius in the Lee- ward Islands, and these too were la- beled /. azoricum by USDA, probably because of its similarity to the earlier introduction. The following year, USDA received more seeds of "J. azoricum" from Nassau, Bahamas (Read, 1962). Jasminum azoricum is a misapplied name for the species introduced into Florida. The correct name is Jasminum fluminense. Another confusing aspect of this plant is its common name and its reported native range. It is usually referred to as Brazilian jasmine because the type locality (where it was first col- lected and described) is near Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. It is believed to have been introduced into Brazil by the Por- tuguese. A frequently used common name for this species is Azores jasmine due to its introduction under the erro- neous name J. azoricum. The native range of Brazilian jas- mine is listed as "Brazil" by Read (1962), as "tropical America" by Wunderlin (1998) and as "Africa" by Menninger (1970). In checking various floras in the research library at Fairchild Tropical Garden, it seems that it is clearly an African native. In the Flora of Tropical East Africa (Bruce and Lewis 1960), its range is given as "Mauritius, Seychelles, Arabia, Eritrea, Somaliland [Somalia and the Ogaden region of Ethiopia], Abyssinia [Ethio- pia], Rhodesia [Zimbabwe], Nyassaland [Malawi], Portuguese East Africa [Mozambique], Angola, Nige- ria, and South Africa (West Indies and South America, introduced)." Other African floras gave similar ranges, none of which mention it being native anywhere in the western hemisphere. Brazilian jasmine has the honor of New Name! Growing Commitment! ProSource One formerly Terra Professional Products has a new name with a growing commitment to our customers. ProSource One is the exclusive source for all of your aquatic vegetation management needs. We offer the right products, reliable advice and dependable services to help make your aquatic program successful. Talk to your ProSource One aquatics vegetation management specialist. Aquatic Specialists Western Florida Polly Ellinor 1-888-813-0562 Eastern Florida Paul Mason 1-800-207-1408 14 WINTER 2000 being the most frequently encountered and most troublesome jasmine in Florida although, curiously, Wunderlin (1998) includes it as "rare" for High- lands, St. Lucie, Miami-Dade, and Monroe counties. It is widespread in a variety of habitats, most particularly hardwood forests, and is a pest in cul- tivated grounds as well. It is an ever- blooming vine with very fragrant white flowers produced in open clus- ters. The leaves are compound, bear- ing three leaflets that are slightly pu- bescent. Black or dark purple fruits are borne in profusion. Read (1962) pointed out its aggressive tendencies when he wrote, "when left alone it will grow over the top of any tree or shrub as rapidly as any vine." It is listed in Category I of Florida EPPC's list of most invasive species. Seeds are bird- dispersed but dense clusters of seed- lings can be found sprouting from rac- coon droppings as well. Arabian jasmine, from tropical Asia, also deserves watching because it is already listed in Category II by Florida EPPC. Control of jasmines in natural areas has been successful using 10% Garlon 4 as a basal stem treatment on young plants and as a cut stump treat- ment on mature, old growth, woody stems. Seedlings can be hand-pulled but resource managers should make regular site visits to control re-infesta- tions. Literature cited Bruce, E. A. and J. Lewis. 1960. Flora of Tropical East Africa: Loganiaceae. Hubbard, C. E. And E. Milne-Redhead, Editors. Crown Agents for Oversea Governments and Administrations, London, England, pp. 19-23. Menninger, E. A. 1970. Flowering Vines of the World. Heathside Press, Inc., New York, pp. 246-253. Read, R. W. 1962. Jasminum species in cultivation in Florida and their correct names ; Florida State Horticultural So- ciety Proceedings, Vol. 76, pp. 430-437. Wunderlin, R. P. 1998. Guide to the Vascular Plants of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL, p. 488. Wildland WEEDS Charier Advertisers SePRO Griffin DomAgrosciences Riverdale Invasive Plan! Control Bremer Inlernalional Timberland Enterprises. Inc. American Cyanamid Helena limbcrland Enterprises, Inc. Renewing the Environment Vegetation management programs and control products for Aquatics, Forestry and Roadway/Utility Rights of Way. SOLUTIONS - SERVICE - SATISFACTION FLORIDA OFFICE 3705-10 S.W. 42nd Ave Gainesville, FL 32608 (352) 375-2601 (O) (352) 375-3123 (FAX) CORPORATE OFFICE P.O. Box 557 Monticello, AR 71655 (870) 367-8561 WILDLAND WEEDS 15 Dow Agroscience Ad B/Wp/u 16 WINTER 2000 Call for Papers and Participation Southeast Exotic Pest Plant (SE-EPPC) Council 2001 National Conference 2001 : A Weed Odyssey Wednesday, March 21st through Friday, March 23rd, 2001 Georgia Center for Continuing Education The University of Georgia • Athens, Georgia Conference Objectives The objectives of this interdisciplinary conference include: 1 ) exchange information and technology leading to cost- effective management of invasive exotic species in natural and developed areas; 2) provide a forum for participants to develop networks of mutual assistance, and; 3) facilitate interdisciplinary dialog between policy makers, land managers, and researchers. Call for Papers Participants are invited to submit proposals for oral presentations at the Conference. Accepted abstracted will be published in conference proceedings. Specific topics to be covered will include, but are not limited to, the following areas: • Applied and Basic Ecological Research • Control and Management - Herbicide Technology and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) • Executive Order - Overview and Consequences • Outreach and Education • Public Policy • Regional and Municipal Action Plans • Screening and Assessment Techniques Keynote Speaker Lori Williams, Director, Federal Invasive Species Council Instruction for Authors The abstract should be a maximum of 400 words and provide sufficient information for readers to fully analyze the objectives, methodology, results, and implications of the work in question. Each submission must be original work that has not been previously published. Each abstract will be reviewed by the conference committee and recommended for either acceptance or rejection. Submissions should be sent in the following formats • E-mail (preferred) to cheryl@uga.edu or Plain Text PostScript (.ps) Portable Document File (.pdf) Deadline for Paper Submission: November 30, 2000 General Instructions: Headings: The title, name(s) of the author(s), their affiliation(s), city and country should be included. Please do not include university degrees, titles, street address, and zip code. References: Please try to minimize the number of references. Conference Committee: Joyce Bender (KY), Brian Bowen (TN), Ray Dorsey (GA), Amy Ferriter (FL), Stratford Kay (NC), Cheryl McCormick (GA), Tony Pernas (FL), Johnny Randall (NC), Dan Thayer (FL), Alfred Vick (GA). • Hard Copy Mail to: Cheryl McCormick Institute of Ecology The University of Georgia Athens, Georgia 30602-2022 WILDLAND WEEDS 17 Internodes MARK YOU CALENDAR XenoNET Are the new methods of techno-sci- ence leaving you in the lurch? Or do you, at the least, want to be able to bluff your way through a recombinant DNA discussion on your next Harley Davidson club ride? Well, don't let it slow you down, Bucky! Come up to speed with some of the following techno-savvy websites! You can virtually test-drive some technically advanced biological tools thanks to the folks at Howard Hughes Medical Institute at www.hhmi.org / grants / lectures /biointer active / vlabs.html . Diagnose the troubled heart of a virtual cardiac patient, iden- tify some bacteria through polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, or investi- gate neurological dynamics by prod- ding the simple nerve system of some leeches. They're "virtually" guaran- teed not to suck your blood. If you're want to try some genetic recombinations, but don't want to re- lease a new monster into the world, try some virtual DNA manipulations on some good old fruit flies, the classic organisms of genetics. Register for a free 7-day trial at: http:/ /vcourseware5. calstatela.edu/VirtualFlyLab /IntroVfly Lab.html. You can induce mutations in your own Drosophilean superflies, hatch 'em out, and see what happens. There are 11 other virtual biology labs including biochemistry of plants (do you recall the differences between C-3 and C-4 photosynthesis?); evolution; the human heart's reactions to vari- ables like exercise and pharmaceuti- cals; and achieving zero population growth in your own brave new world by manipulating population dynam- ics. And who said the study of rocks was just for jocks? You can essentially experience the study of geology while becoming a certified virtual seismolo- gist! Then, you can rock your world with the simulated earthquake of your choice at: http:/ /vcourseware5 .calstatela.edu / VirtualEarthquake / VquakeIntro.html. And while you're at it, try some clas- sic Mad Scientist projects from the Mad Scientist Network at www.madsci. org /experiments . Talk about child- hood memories! Try out that foamy old favorite, the vinegar and baking soda volcano! And nothing can really compare with coming up with your own bucket o' slime! — Mike Bodle 54th Annual Southern Weed Sci- ence Society Conference, Beau Rivage, Biloxi, MS. January 22-24, 2001. Contact: www.weedscience. msstate.edu/ swss/. Weed Science Society of America. February 11-15, 2001. Greensboro, NC. Contact: Charlotte Eberlein, 208/763-3600, ceberl@uidaho.edu. Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council "2001 Conference: A Weed Odyssey". Georgia Center for Con- tinuing Education,University of Georgia, Athens. March 21-24, 2001. Contact: Cheryl McCormick, cheryl@uga.edu . League of Environmental Educa- tors in Florida (LEEF), annual confer- ence, March 22-25, 2001. Leesburg, FL. Contact: eileen_tramontana@ district.sjrwmd.state.fl.us Association of Southeastern Bi- ologists/ Southern Appalachian Bo- tanical Society /SE Chapter of Eco- logical Society of America /Tri-Beta: 62nd Annual Meeting, April 4-7, 2001. New Orleans, LA. Contact: www.loyno.edu/~asb 16th Annual Symposium, Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, September 12-14, 2001, St. Augus- tine, FL. Contact: Kathy Burks, kathy.burks@ dep.state.fi. us Join the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council! Annual Membership Dues Include: Quarterly magazine, Wildland Weeds • Quarterly newsletter Legislative updates regarding exotic plant control issues. Membership: INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTIONAL Student - $10 • General - $20 General - $100 • Contributing - $500 Contributing - $50 • Donor - $5 1-500 Donor -$501 -$10,000 • Patron -$10,000 or more Wildland Weeds subscription - $1 5/year (does not include other membership benefits) Name: Address: Telephone:^ e-mail: Membership type: Mail to: Dan Thayer, 3301 Gun Club Rd., West Palm Bch., FL 33406 18 WINTER 2000 Zeneca Full page 4/C New film here WILDLAND WEEDS 19 Griffin 4/C P/U from Summer Aquatics (Avast) 20 WINTER 2000